I Don't Get Materialism
Actually written AUGUST 20, 2011
I don’t get materialism. It seems to me that all the materialist arguments are essentially representationalism – the idea that consciousness is nothing more than a physical representation of the world grasped by said consciousness. To me, trying to prove representationalism is as absurd as trying to prove a piece of paper is aware of the planet earth because it has a circle drawn on it that represents the earth. The materialist objects to this absurd reduction because a piece of paper is not a brain. Of course a piece of paper with a circle on it is not anywhere near as complex as a physical brain. This is true. But I fail to see what complexity adds to the argument. I suspect complexity is just a mystification added to make the argument appear to work. Complexity is the “magical ingredient” that just makes it work, somehow. Materialists claim the piece of paper isn’t aware of the earth because the circle drawn on it isn’t a complex enough representation. Why? What does complexity add that creates awareness? Is it a matter of accuracy (resolution)? If so, then would a piece of paper be aware of the earth if it were a photograph of the earth? Would the dots per inch of the photograph matter? Is it a matter of representations in a context of other representations? If so, why can’t the piece of paper be aware of some place on the earth by putting a dot on the circle (or photograph) to represent the place in context of the world as a whole? Still not complex enough? Why? Is it a matter of having real-time interaction with the objects of awareness? If so, why? What does “real-time interaction” add to the argument? A video camera has representation by means of a real-time interaction with the world. Is it therefore aware of the world? Of course not, say materialists, because the camera is not complex enough. But here we are again. What does complexity add and precisely how much and what types of complexity are needed? And most of all, why?
Materialists often answer with the need for a representation of the aware self. The self must also be represented in the representation scheme. Fine. So draw a rectangle on the piece of paper (next to the circle) and say the rectangle represents the piece of paper itself. Now is the paper aware? Still no? Why or why not? Still lacking in complexity? Still needs real-time interaction too? Fine. Let’s aim the video camera at a pane of glass under just the right lighting such that the camera also creates an image of itself, as well as other objects. Still lacking something? What then? Lacking some kind of complexity? Name it and explain why it generates consciousness.
So here I’ve been suggesting that the materialist employs a bit of mysticism in the arguments for materialism. I’ll call it “complexity mysticism”. How can a materialist defend herself from my accusation of “complexity mysticism”? I'll now take a guess.
The materialist might defend herself by saying “Well, maybe I’ve mystified complexity a bit here, but the alternative is even worse on the scale of mysticism. Complexity is the most likely explanation for consciousness because the alternative is basically a belief in ghosts, and that’s an even worse kind of mysticism. So fine, accuse me of ‘complexity mysticism’. At least it’s not outright ghost mysticism. At least there’s a certain amount of scientific plausibility in the complexity idea.”
My response is that the materialist has an unwarranted bias against ghosts. But let’s be a bit clear here. The alternative to materialism doesn’t mean there really are ghosts floating about in graveyards and abandoned houses and so on. The ghosts in question here are the ones that animate our physical bodies, and likely cease to exist when our bodies no longer function. These ghosts depend on the physical body for their existence, and when the body dies, so do they. They don’t live on to go haunting anyone.
It is pejorative to call the alternative to materialism a belief in “ghosts”. But I accept that term because I agree that ghosts are basically what we are talking about. No use beating around the bush here. Just as long as we leave out the classic graveyard ghosts that avowed mystics believe in. We can talk more reasonably about a ghost that animates and depends on the physical body.
And what I’m saying here is that the materialist has an unwarranted bias against the existence of such ghosts, no matter how matter-dependent they are. They are engaging in scientism, the belief that existence must be exclusively physical – that if it exists, it simply must be physical. There is no reason for this scientism except an aesthetically motivated prejudice. Why must all of existence be physical? There is no reason why. Materialists just want all of existence to be physical so they can study it using the tested scientific methods. They don’t want there to be some other non-physical existents that must be studied by means of other as yet undefined methods. In other words, materialists are making a demand upon existence, demanding it comprise only what they feel secure about studying. But existence doesn’t bend to our demands. And the expectation that existence bends to our demands actually makes the materialist a bit of hypocrite. The scientific attitude is supposed to be one in which we let nature inform us of how it works and what existents it comprises – it is supposed to be a humble respect for existence, allowing existence to be whatever it is, leaving it up to us to find the effective methods for discovering what it's made of. To demand, therefore, that existence be exclusively physical is to abandon the attitude of the true scientist. So heed the distinction between science and scientism. Science studies existence with an open attitude. Scientism demands existence be physical only.
The materialist will accuse me of having a mind that is too open - so open that mystical bullshit has taken root in it. She will still insist that to believe in ghosts of any sort is a leap of fancy that goes beyond any evidence. This is where philosophy comes in. Not everything needs evidence to support its existence. Some things are simply self-evident. Meaning that while their existence isn’t supported by anything else, they are evident none-the-less, they are the evidence for themselves. Existence itself is one such self-evident thing. You cannot provide any evidence for existence. Attempting to do so would be circular. Such evidence would have to be instances of existence that beg the question. To avoid begging the question, one would have to go outside of existence to find the supporting evidence there. But there is nothing outside of existence. That’s impossible. So what I’m saying is that consciousness, the ghost model of consciousness, is another one of these self-evident things, like existence. There is no evidence for it except our own direct experience of it, making itself evident to us in each instance of our seeking such evidence. To seek evidence is an act of consciousness of which one can become conscious, thereby providing evidence for itself.
The materialist rejects self-evidence, expecting only evidence of the supporting kind for everything. The materialist is therefore one of the idiots who would seek evidence for existence in non-existence, and evidence of consciousness in non-consciousness.
My mind is not “too open” after all. My mind is merely paying attention to things that are self-evident, as well as supported by other evidence. My mind, my “ghost”, is actually more rigorous than the materialist’s mind when it comes to consciousness. The materialist is a ghost that rejects the existence of ghosts because she rejects the self-evident. I want to tell the materialist, “You are a ghost (in part), you moron. And your refusal to see that is just emotionalist nonsense on par with the real mystics who believe in the haunting kind of ghosts.”
Well, I’m tempted to render such insults anyway. But I really would not do so in actual life. Consciousness as a ghost is an axiomatic concept. And not everyone is able to grasp axiomatic concepts. They are in some sense invisible precisely because they are ubiquitous. It is difficult to see the very eye through which you look as you seek evidence for eyes. It takes a great feat of mental abstraction to grasp a ubiquitous axiomatic concept. And, quite frankly, not everyone is able to do this abstraction. Some are, with training, I suppose. One can start on such training by studying how Ayn Rand describes the process of abstraction in her book, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. She even has a chapter devoted to axiomatic concepts.
I’m convinced that people who demand evidence for existence have not performed the great leap of abstraction required to understand just what existence really is. I am likewise convinced about people who demand evidence for ghostlike consciousness. I’m convinced they have not performed the great leap of abstraction required to understand just what consciousness really is.
Fine. The materialist and I can both sit here accusing one another of some mental failing. There’s ultimately no arbiter of truth here. These things cannot be proven one way or the other. Axiomatic concepts are either accepted or rejected without any reason. Fights over first principles are unwinnable. But there you have it. There’s my side of the fight.
Comments
Post a Comment